Skip to main content

About your Search

WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
't extreme and chuck schumer would not endorse somebody, his views on foreign policy are middle of the road. he wouldn't endorse somebody who was extreme. i think his vietnam experience is important. it's been noted and it's important that you now have at state john kerry and you would have at defense chuck hagel, two veterans of vietnam who look back and say we are ib clind to be very cautious before we commit american lives to any kind of foreign intervention. we want to be able to tell the troops. and hagel has characterized himself as an old sergeant, wants to tell the truth, so we need to make this fight. i think the good thing this hearing if it went there instead of just kind of particular attacks or questions to hagel, if this hearing went to a larger discussion of president obama's foreign policy because in broad terms hagel is with obama. obama's view is this is a moment when we need to pull back a bit, rebuild at home, and rethink some of these commitments. the americans are tired of war at this moment, and i think hagel really represents that exhaustion with the war and the desi
on the jihadization for a policy under obama? i said, ma'am, with all due respect, president obama's foreign policy is an extension of president bush's foreign policy. if there's any difference at all, president obama is killing more people overseas than president bush ever did. so, no, i don't think there's any difference between the bush foreign policy and the obama foreign policy, which i think is a shame. there was a wonderful opportunity to take a different path and to reclaim our position as a moral leader in the world. i am disappointed in that. with regard to john brennan, i've known him since 1990. i worked directly for john brennan twice. i think he is a terrible choice to lead the cia. i think it is time for the cia to move beyond the ugliness of the post-september 11 regime, and we need someone who is going to respect the constitution and not be bogged down by a legacy of torture. i think president obama's upon of john brennan sends the message to all americans. >> you worked with him, directly for him. did he receive internal updates regularly about the torture techniques including wat
secretary of state. why? >> well, first it's not easy to be a great secretary of state. foreign policy is a provence of the president. the secretary of state is his emmisary and directed to direct diplomats to carry it out. that is point one. point two, she worked hard, traveled all over the place but the list after chiefment that's can be attributed to her is not long and it's not major. i mean, how well has it reset with russia worked down that she was involved in start something how are things before arabs and israelies? how about iran, north korea. have they been halted? no. i don't think so. you look around for a clinton doctrine has she articulated a new way of think something i would say not. what about major treaties? has she engaged in negotiations that led to the signing of major treaties or any major treaty? the answer to those questions appears to be no. these are the things that might put you in the category that might put you in the category of great secretary of state. she's worked hard zrk her home work, but great? i don't think great. >> bill: you left out the arab spr
on foreign policy can do it through hagel today, through this hearing. the past positions hagel has taken where supporters of israel believe that he has made statements that suggest he's soft on israel, he does not support the president's positions on iran, or that he does not view hezbollah as a terrorist organization, administration officials say he will clearly address all those past statements, put them to bed and make it emphatic that he fully supports the president's positions today and yet they know this will be a drawn out in their view political exercise and think he could get confirmed by well more than the 60% majority because he's a member of the senate club and in the end they support somebody who they view as a senator and in the white house's view still a mainstream person. jake? >> we're listening right now as we're watching right now as senator levin of michigan introduces the new members of the senate armed services committee, senator levin, democrat of michigan we see there, next is senator chuck hagel, was former republican senator from virginia john warner, chuck hage
too difficult, and they become foreign policy presidents in part because they have so much more leeway. but for barack obama, i think this happened early. >> tay, we got the obama plan for leaving iraq... >> president obama announced the current phase of the war is coming to an end... >> narrator: early on, obama had set a timetable for withdrawing troops from iraq. >> within 19 months... >> he came into office promising to get out of iraq. his rise had a lot to do with his opposition to the iraq war. and i don't think he ever looked back. >> narrator: but there was another, secret side to obama's approach to the world. candidate obama had been critical of much of the bush administration's top secret war on terror. as president, it was a different story. >> his people made it clear that in the terrorism arena, he was going to be as tough if not tougher than the bush people. he was going to be extraordinarily aggressive. he and his people reviewed all existing ongoing cia covert operations and with the exception of aggressive interrogations, endorsed all of them, and doubled down on a n
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to -- >> are you going to answer the question senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straight forward question. >> well -- >> i would like to hear whether you're right or wrong and then you're free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> well, let the record show that you refused to answer that question. >> gregg: of course, john mccain was the champion of the surge. what are hagel's chances of winning confirmation? let's bring in the washington time's columnist charlie hurt. it's the good old boys club in the u.s. senate. he's going to get confirmed, right? >> yeah. i think that that hearing will go down as one of the worst in television history. i mean, he was unprepared. he didn't know what he was talking about. he state wrong policy at times and then when he did assert things he asitterred things that were pretty scary such as talking about how
we believed in a restrained foreign policy. so that's part of the balance. you know, you go back and you look at what william buckley said about iraq and he said it wasn't a conservative venture because there's nothing conservative about believing you're going to be able to change the way people live and think in other countries that don't have a democratic background. those were buckley's words, not mine. i think the bigger problem, though, really has to do on the domestic side of things because, you know, republicans i think as long as republicans have a coherent foreign policy, i think americans will go along with it. i think our bigger problem from the bush era came from he was a big government republican. he came in, we had $155 billion surplus. when he left we had $1 trillion deficit. our national debt doubled. we had a $7 trillion medicare drug benefit plan that polls showed was a 50/50 proposition at best. george w. bush didn't veto a single appropriations bill. and we saw not only -- because when you say this and start going down the list, some republicans get defensive.
where were the tough questions about global hot spots and our foreign policies. let's talk about it with jim pinkerton a contributing editor and writer for the american conservative magazine. alan colmes host of the alan colmes radio show and author of thank the liberals for saving america. welcome to both of you. steve croft said it in the intro he said we barely had enough time to scratch the surface of their complicated relationship. jim, assess what scratching they did? >> no scratching whatsoever, that is for sure. every journalist has to make a choice. if you want the interview you sometimes have to take the terms that the interviewee wants whether the termser explicit or implicit. when oprah winfrey be began to interview lance armstrong. was tough question, tough question, tough question, a tough interview at least the first half. steve croft has set himself up for puff tee interviews with the obama administration. it was quite striking. ron forneau of the national journal said the president and mrs. clinton were like an old married couple, happily sitting there and happil
and millions of people around the world. left a profoundly positive mark on american foreign policy and you've done enormous good for all of us and for the country we serve. we will miss you deeply. [cheers and applause] but none of us will ever forget your extraordinary leadership and each of us will always be deeply proud to say that we served hillary clinton's state department. [cheers and applause] and so now it's my great honor to introduce one last time the 67th secretary of state of the united states of america, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. oh, well. just standing here looking out at all of you, the people i have been honored to serve and lead and work with over the last four years is an incredible experience. when i came into this building as the secretary of state four years ago and received such a warm welcome, i knew there was something really special about this place. and that having the honor to lead the state department and you said would be unique -- usaid would be unique and singular, exciting and challenging. it has been all of those thing
.s. consulate in benghazi. foreign policy experts say she didn't have one signature achievement, but she did leave a mark. >> on balance, i think that she's notable for a steadiness, for a relatively error-free period, for extremely loyal service to the president. >> reporter: her journey to secretary of state was somewhat improbable. from the white house as first lady to a senate to a tough campaign against her now-former boss. >> i was a big admirer of hillary's before our primary battles. >> if the roles had been reversed and i had ended up winning, i would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. so if i'm saying i would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am i going to justify saying no to my president? >> reporter: while today she can sleep in, clinton's next move is a mystery. she joked to "the new york times" in november, "maybe i'll get a decorating show." the speck blaulation about a wh house run in 2016 has begun in earnest. >> for the foreseeable future, i don't think that i will be at all political because there's so much else i need to do. >> reporter: now sources clo
't usually think of as economic policy. immigration reform. i want to give you a few facts about immigrants and the american economy. first, about a tenth of the population is foreign-born, but more than a quarter of business started had a foreign-born owner. in silicon valley, half of all tech starts had a foreign-born owner. right now, about half of the doctors working in science and technology in america are foreign-born. immigrants are 30% more likely to get new businesses and three times more likely to file patents than their counterparts, on average, they tend to lift the american wages. the case is made by way of analogy. everybody gets, aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble. immigration is essential the importing of new workers, like raising the birth rate. but easier, because the newcomers are able to work immediately. you don't have to teach them to walk or eat with a fork. and in the u.s., they have an unusually amount to gain from the immigration, because when it comes to the global draft, we almost always get the first round picks. we do if we want them, and we ma
should be sending foreign aid to them, that the regime of president. my call to congress is you have to do something about it. you have to pressure the administration to have a different policy with regard to egypt. lou: north korea again threatening south korea, threatening the united states, threatening another nuclear test the prospect of more missile tests. what should be the u.s. response to what has, it looks to be, another adventuress regime in north korea. >> first, the equation is simple. the more north korean regime is going to do in terms of showing as the missiles, testing missiles demobilizing, threatening against the south koreans, and we don't do anything meaningful. meeting, we don't have a containment policy, the work even with the chinese and the russians to contain the north koreans. you do more of it. at some point in time there will show us the missiles with the bomb. the other byproduct of this is that other regimes, the iranian regime is looking at how we are not containing the north koreans, even after the develop the weapon. what will their conclusion b? so i
assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." he goes on to say -- "over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. that is trillion with a t. that is money that we have borrowed from the social security trust fund, borrowed from china and japan, borrowed from the american taxpayers. with over -- and over the next five years between now and 2011, the president's budget will increase the debt by almost $3.5 trillion." continuing to quote from senator obama in 2006, "numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. some people may wonder why they matter. here is why. this year, the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. that is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on medicaid and the state children's health insurance program. that is more money than we pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans' benefits combined. it's more in one year than we're likely to spend to rebuild the devastat
in the u.s. foreign policy and that the u.s. officials will favor peace instead of warmongering." the iranians are claiming that we're the ones warmongering while they are building a nuclear weapon. just for good measure, thal jazeera web site wrote an article "obama defeats the lobby." is this the impression we want to give our applies to the middle east? is this how we encourage our friends to say we will be there to support our allies? is this the message we want to convey to our adversaries like iran who has threatened the annihilation of israel to wipe it off the map? unfortunately, that's the message that's conveyed by a nomination of senator hagel as secretary of defense. not only is senator hagel been a persistent critic of iran's sanctions, he's also displayed a stubborn hostility to america's closest middle eastern ally. in october 2000 shortly after yasser arafat launch a second intifada, 96 u.s. senators signed a letter to president clinton affirming their solidarity with israel. senator hagel was not among th them. six months later, after a relentless onslaught of p
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)